For those of you bashing Buffett for donating his money to the Gates Foundation instead of paying it in taxes, who do you think would do a better job with the money, the federal govt. or the Gates Foundation?
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For those of you bashing Buffett for donating his > money to the Gates Foundation instead of paying it > in taxes, who do you think would do a better job > with the money, the federal govt. or the Gates > Foundation? touche
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For those of you bashing Buffett for donating his > money to the Gates Foundation instead of paying it > in taxes, who do you think would do a better job > with the money, the federal govt. or the Gates > Foundation? Exactly! One of the fundemental rationale of a lower tax is that the government is not effective and effeicent in spending your money. In gernal, it’s better to leave them in private hands.
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For those of you bashing Buffett for donating his > money to the Gates Foundation instead of paying it > in taxes, who do you think would do a better job > with the money, the federal govt. or the Gates > Foundation? Better job how? The framing of the argument is relative to the deficit/debt, which I would argue the government, while proven to be largely ineffectual, is still more likely to take action to reduce than the Gates Foundation. And, lest you think I am a pro-tax communist devil, I like when rich people keep their money and start family offices and foundations…it gives me more money to manage.
It is reasonable to say: “I am happy to pay a higher tax so long as other people like me also pay it.” It is not hypocritical to say: “I will not pay it unless or until other people like me also pay it.” It is also not hypocritical to say that, until one is sure that other people like me are taxed at a similar higher level, I will devote my wealth to charitable purposes via private sector organizations, such as an organization (the Gates Foundation) that has demonstrated sufficient success and/or vision that I don’t see the need to set up my own independent foundation. I don’t think Warren Buffet donated to charity solely or even primarily as an estate tax dodge. I do think he may well have tried to maximize the tax benefit of a primarily philanthropic action.
higgmond Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For those of you bashing Buffett for donating his > money to the Gates Foundation instead of paying it > in taxes, who do you think would do a better job > with the money, the federal govt. or the Gates > Foundation? This isn’t a good comparison though - these organizations serve different purposes. For instance, lets say that due to my love of girl scouts, I donate all my money to Girl Scouts of America. Then, I complain about the inadequacies of tax-funded services in my area, like pot holes. My donation to the girl scouts had nothing to do with fixing pot holes. In fact, by writing off my donation, I reduced tax revenue, therefore reducing the likelihood that the pot holes will be repaired. So, where Mr. Buffet is concerned, I applaud his donations to the Gates Foundation. However, this has nothing to do with his opinion about raising taxes to reduce the US fiscal deficit. The Gates Foundation does AIDS research and is not related to the financial health of the US.
Living in Seattle, and moderately familiar with the work of the Gates Foundation, I will say that AIDS research is a very minor aspect of their current operations. One of their initial goals of increasing the quality of education in the US through the use of technology has since morphed into increasing the efficacy of US education through any cost effective means (i.e., changes in teaching methods and school structure), and has lessened relative to its current main goal of applying their resources to reduce human suffering worldwide at the lowest cost per life. One of their tenets is that the value of a human life and happiness is equal, regardless of where you live - so they avoid spending on expensive, niche research such as AIDS cures… they do spend very significantly on malaria prevention - both research and low-cost implementation changes - netting, prevention education, etc. Further, I would argue that improving the quality of education, and as an effect, the earnings capability of future generations, is very strongly related to the financial health of the US.
plausible explanation (if he thinks his current market effect is larger than the delta in tax liability): James Altucher of Formula Capital says Buffett’s reasons aren’t as altruistic as one might imagine. Buffett has a hidden agenda that has more to do with profits than it does the collective good of the nation, Altucher explains: "It’s not that investors are less likely to buy when there are higher taxes, it’s that they are less likely to SELL. Warren Buffett has $50 billion in the stock market. It’s very very hard for him to sell even when he wants to. When he sells he not only moves the stock but people get afraid (“Warren Buffett is selling!!”) and they start selling also, making it harder for Buffett to sell. Also, when there is bad news on a stock Buffett owns, the retail investor has a much easier time getting out of a bad position than Buffett does. In other words, the one advantage the retail investor has over Buffett is that they are more nimble. And Buffett hates that. He hates when someone has an advantage over him. So let’s penalize them. Let’s raise the capital gains to 40%. Let’s raise it as high as possible. “The rich should pay more taxes!” That’s what Buffett is saying on the surface. But underneath, what he’s really saying is: “lets penalize people for having one single advantage over me in my investing.”
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > It is not hypocritical to say: “I will not pay it > unless or until other people like me also pay > it.” Haha! I like this joke. Work it into your shows. Imagine this, there is a big pile of trash in your neighborhood. It’s stinky and scares away would be home buyers from your street. One day, neighbors gathered together to find solutions for the trash. Mr. Hypo, a well off and well respeced neighbor, said: “we should really roll up our sleeves and take the trash away…” Well said. But he then said: “I am not going to move my ass if others don’t do it.” This big pile of trash is the US deficit problem. Mr. Hypo is Mr. Buffett.
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bchadwick Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > It is not hypocritical to say: “I will not pay > it > > unless or until other people like me also pay > > it.” > > Haha! I like this joke. Work it into your shows. > > Imagine this, there is a big pile of trash in your > neighborhood. It’s stinky and scares away would be > home buyers from your street. One day, neighbors > gathered together to find solutions for the trash. > Mr. Hypo, a well off and well respeced neighbor, > said: “we should really roll up our sleeves and > take the trash away…” Well said. > > But he then said: “I am not going to move my ass > if others don’t do it.” > > This big pile of trash is the US deficit problem. > Mr. Hypo is Mr. Buffett. Boooo! get off the stage!
jbaldyga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > plausible explanation (if he thinks his current > market effect is larger than the delta in tax > liability): > > James Altucher of Formula Capital says Buffett’s > reasons aren’t as altruistic as one might imagine. > Buffett has a hidden agenda that has more to do > with profits than it does the collective good of > the nation, Altucher explains: > > "It’s not that investors are less likely to buy > when there are higher taxes, it’s that they are > less likely to SELL. Warren Buffett has $50 > billion in the stock market. It’s very very hard > for him to sell even when he wants to. When he > sells he not only moves the stock but people get > afraid (“Warren Buffett is selling!!”) and they > start selling also, making it harder for Buffett > to sell. Also, when there is bad news on a stock > Buffett owns, the retail investor has a much > easier time getting out of a bad position than > Buffett does. In other words, the one advantage > the retail investor has over Buffett is that they > are more nimble. And Buffett hates that. He hates > when someone has an advantage over him. > So let’s penalize them. Let’s raise the capital > gains to 40%. Let’s raise it as high as possible. > “The rich should pay more taxes!” That’s what > Buffett is saying on the surface. But underneath, > what he’s really saying is: “lets penalize people > for having one single advantage over me in my > investing.” That’s some conspiracy theory.
^ Boooo you back! I now put you in charge of cleaning that big pile of trash…
AlphaSeeker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bchadwick Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > It is not hypocritical to say: “I will not pay > it > > unless or until other people like me also pay > > it.” > > Haha! I like this joke. Work it into your shows. > > Imagine this, there is a big pile of trash in your > neighborhood. It’s stinky and scares away would be > home buyers from your street. One day, neighbors > gathered together to find solutions for the trash. > Mr. Hypo, a well off and well respeced neighbor, > said: “we should really roll up our sleeves and > take the trash away…” Well said. > > But he then said: “I am not going to move my ass > if others don’t do it.” > > This big pile of trash is the US deficit problem. > Mr. Hypo is Mr. Buffett. So by your logic I should personally hire a road crew to repair my neighborhood street; otherwise, I am a hypocrite.
The point is: don’t just say we should raise the tax on the rich while you yourself is putting $40 billion or so in a tax sheltered charity… If Buffett is really for raising taxes on the rich, cut a $20 billion check to IRS himself first. Lead by example, brother. Now, let’s give Buffett a Boo…
jbaldyga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > plausible explanation (if he thinks his current > market effect is larger than the delta in tax > liability): > > James Altucher of Formula Capital says Buffett’s > reasons aren’t as altruistic as one might imagine. > Buffett has a hidden agenda that has more to do > with profits than it does the collective good of > the nation, Altucher explains: > > "It’s not that investors are less likely to buy > when there are higher taxes, it’s that they are > less likely to SELL. Warren Buffett has $50 > billion in the stock market. It’s very very hard > for him to sell even when he wants to. When he > sells he not only moves the stock but people get > afraid (“Warren Buffett is selling!!”) and they > start selling also, making it harder for Buffett > to sell. Also, when there is bad news on a stock > Buffett owns, the retail investor has a much > easier time getting out of a bad position than > Buffett does. In other words, the one advantage > the retail investor has over Buffett is that they > are more nimble. And Buffett hates that. He hates > when someone has an advantage over him. > So let’s penalize them. Let’s raise the capital > gains to 40%. Let’s raise it as high as possible. > “The rich should pay more taxes!” That’s what > Buffett is saying on the surface. But underneath, > what he’s really saying is: “lets penalize people > for having one single advantage over me in my > investing.” heh, I think this is a frame dependent opinion and that not everyone is as selfish and greedy as James Altucher.
holy shit, is alphaseeker serious? I thought for sure he was trolling, but now, not so sure…
bodhisattva Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > jbaldyga Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > plausible explanation (if he thinks his current > > market effect is larger than the delta in tax > > liability): > > > > James Altucher of Formula Capital says > Buffett’s > > reasons aren’t as altruistic as one might > imagine. > > Buffett has a hidden agenda that has more to do > > with profits than it does the collective good > of > > the nation, Altucher explains: > > > > "It’s not that investors are less likely to buy > > when there are higher taxes, it’s that they are > > less likely to SELL. Warren Buffett has $50 > > billion in the stock market. It’s very very > hard > > for him to sell even when he wants to. When he > > sells he not only moves the stock but people > get > > afraid (“Warren Buffett is selling!!”) and they > > start selling also, making it harder for > Buffett > > to sell. Also, when there is bad news on a > stock > > Buffett owns, the retail investor has a much > > easier time getting out of a bad position than > > Buffett does. In other words, the one advantage > > the retail investor has over Buffett is that > they > > are more nimble. And Buffett hates that. He > hates > > when someone has an advantage over him. > > So let’s penalize them. Let’s raise the capital > > gains to 40%. Let’s raise it as high as > possible. > > “The rich should pay more taxes!” That’s what > > Buffett is saying on the surface. But > underneath, > > what he’s really saying is: “lets penalize > people > > for having one single advantage over me in my > > investing.” > > > heh, I think this is a frame dependent opinion and > that not everyone is as selfish and greedy as > James Altucher. you don’t think buffet is selfish? did he amass billions for the benefit of someone as yet unnamed? i think your comment exhibits frame dependence - you have zero understanding of human nature so you’re frame of reference is unhuman. warren buffet is greedy and selfish and for that he is almost virtuous. if he demanded of himself that he not take special favors from the government, then he’d be virtuous.
Brutally cunning and competitive. Not greedy or selfish.
I do love how people think that this country was built on 15% GC and 38% top marginal tax brackets and going anywhere above that = economic disaster. When we built our interstates, our bridges, or dams…etc, that the top marginal tax rates were far higher and the cap gains were also. The spoiled offspring of the “greatest generation” do not want to perpetuate that cycle, instead, they want to be like a spoiled brat, milking it for everything it’s worth. Their children see the world the same way, as long as I get mine, screw everybody else. They let somebody else pay for it and are now reaping the benefits of an atrophying system. Harry Truman made $400k off of his book. After taxes, he netted less than 120k. He didn’t care. He only aspired to make the country great and contribute his share. His biggest goal in life was to buy back the farm his family lost to foreclosure when he had no money. As far as Buffett being a hypocrite - the money goes into the system, whether through the government or through Gates. The efficacy is similar but the end result is exactly the same. It doesn’t matter if he paid tax on it or not. He is not reaping benefits from the tax “savings”, since he’s giving the money away anyway. The “double taxation” thing is a bunch of bunk. Income is income, whether that income is from sweat labor or capital labor, it is INCOME and should be taxed at similar, if not the exact same, levels. Ask yourself if what he is railing against isn’t the reality. How many people on the Fortune 400 were “doers” back in 1980. Now look at it and see how many are “investors” who do nothing more than go to the casino and gamble. That gambling is at the cost of somebody, they aren’t all new IPOs or secondary issuances and many are commodities that they have a self-interest in having inflate. Even more actively participate in HFT which does nothing more than cheat regular investors since they can’t afford supercomputers and algorithms to plug quotes into systems that trigger flash crash enduced stop-loss orders. What’s humorous is that you guys are massively intellectually bankrupt. You can barely look at yourselves to realize the truth. That the real issue here, the one Buffett is really railing against, is the same issue that is the real enemy of democracy. It’s not “big government”, since that is really representative. It’s an inevitable plutocracy bred through inherited wealth. Take Buffett’s actions and words and apply it to that *REAL* issue. Then, if you can call him a hypocrite, I can call you a self-deceiving, intellectually bankrupt, liar. There needs to be tax increases AND spending cuts. Let’s first pare down the military budget to what it was in 2001, saving ourselves ~400bn/yr.
Canadian_Accountant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Brutally cunning and competitive. > > Not greedy or selfish. this is a contradiction. how can you be competitive and not selfish? you work really hard at beating everyone else, but you don’t take the benefits? i think his bank account refutes this.